Global warming debunked.....

[BILLYFRED0000]

Global warming debunked
By ANDREW SWALLOW - The Timaru Herald | Saturday, 19 May 2007

Climate change will be considered a joke in five years time, meteorologist Augie Auer told the annual meeting of Mid Canterbury Federated Farmers in Ashburton this week.

Man's contribution to the greenhouse gases was so small we couldn't change the climate if we tried, he maintained.

"We're all going to survive this. It's all going to be a joke in five years," he said.

A combination of misinterpreted and misguided science, media hype, and political spin had created the current hysteria and it was time to put a stop to it.

"It is time to attack the myth of global warming," he said.

Water vapour was responsible for 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect, an effect which was vital to keep the world warm, he explained.

"If we didn't have the greenhouse effect the planet would be at minus 18 deg C but because we do have the greenhouse effect it is plus 15 deg C, all the time."

The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFCs, contributed only five per cent of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the greatest contributor at 3.6 per cent.

However, carbon dioxide as a result of man's activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total. Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide and CFCs etc made similarly minuscule contributions to the effect: 0.066, 0.047 and 0.046 per cent respectively.

"That ought to be the end of the argument, there and then," he said.

"We couldn't do it (change the climate) even if we wanted to because water vapour dominates."

Yet the Greens continued to use phrases such as "The planet is groaning under the weight of CO2" and Government policies were about to hit industries such as farming, he warned.

"The Greens are really going to go after you because you put out 49 per cent of the countries emissions. Does anybody ask 49 per cent of what? Does anybody know how small that number is?

"It's become a witch-hunt; a Salem witch-hunt," he said.

[JasperDog94]

Ding! Ding! Ding!

Time for round 3...or is it round 4?

[sinton66]

New catch Phrase! VOODOO CLIMATOLOGY:D

[BILLYFRED0000]

ROFL:clap: :clap: :clap:

[smustangs]

o great here we go again :nerd:

[BILLYFRED0000]

You do the math. Approximately .28 percent of all GH gasses is what man contributes. And even on a good day we could probably only eliminate .03 percent.
All these morons just ignore basic math.
All of mans contributions less than 3 tenths of 1 percent. Literally a drop in the bucket.

[shankbear]

the politicians' hot air is one of the biggest causes of global warming. Globally boring.

[sinton66]

If there is global warming, it's probably due more to all those California highways. When you tear down mountains to fill in valleys and make flat highways, you alter the spin pattern of the Earth on it's axis. It's probably leaned more toward the sun at the north pole resulting in melting the ice caps. If the enviromaniacs want to chastize someone, they should make Cali tear down those highways and replace the mountains.:D

[sinton66]

And Jeez, would it kill 'em to plant a few trees?:D

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by sinton66
And Jeez, would it kill 'em to plant a few trees?:D
.
I know you do. Heck you even hand out treelings to anyone out there. Especially peach trees.:clap: ;)

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
Global warming debunked
By ANDREW SWALLOW - The Timaru Herald | Saturday, 19 May 2007

Climate change will be considered a joke in five years time, meteorologist Augie Auer told the annual meeting of Mid Canterbury Federated Farmers in Ashburton this week.

Man's contribution to the greenhouse gases was so small we couldn't change the climate if we tried, he maintained.

"We're all going to survive this. It's all going to be a joke in five years," he said.

A combination of misinterpreted and misguided science, media hype, and political spin had created the current hysteria and it was time to put a stop to it.

"It is time to attack the myth of global warming," he said.

Water vapour was responsible for 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect, an effect which was vital to keep the world warm, he explained.

"If we didn't have the greenhouse effect the planet would be at minus 18 deg C but because we do have the greenhouse effect it is plus 15 deg C, all the time."

The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFCs, contributed only five per cent of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the greatest contributor at 3.6 per cent.

However, carbon dioxide as a result of man's activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total. Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide and CFCs etc made similarly minuscule contributions to the effect: 0.066, 0.047 and 0.046 per cent respectively.

"That ought to be the end of the argument, there and then," he said.

"We couldn't do it (change the climate) even if we wanted to because water vapour dominates."

Yet the Greens continued to use phrases such as "The planet is groaning under the weight of CO2" and Government policies were about to hit industries such as farming, he warned.

"The Greens are really going to go after you because you put out 49 per cent of the countries emissions. Does anybody ask 49 per cent of what? Does anybody know how small that number is?

"It's become a witch-hunt; a Salem witch-hunt," he said.
.
Nice article. Don't be suprised if the greenies attack this guy now.:nerd:

[crzyjournalist03]

Originally posted by sinton66
And Jeez, would it kill 'em to plant a few trees?:D

If we're trying to stop global warming, we shouldn't plant more trees! Trees contribute CO2 to the atmosphere, therefore making them worse than humans!!!

Save the world! Kill all trees!!!

[sinton66]

Originally posted by crzyjournalist03
If we're trying to stop global warming, we shouldn't plant more trees! Trees contribute CO2 to the atmosphere, therefore making them worse than humans!!!

Save the world! Kill all trees!!!

Wrong! Trees take in CO2 and emit oxygen. Part of the reason there are higher CO2 levels is because humans keep cutting down all the forests. Another small part is due to automobiles that emit CO2 (and water) after the advent of catalytic converters.
Therefore, more trees will use up excess CO2 levels. (BTW, I know you were kidding, just didn't want any liberals going off on a tangent :D).

[crzyjournalist03]

Originally posted by sinton66
Wrong! Trees take in CO2 and emit oxygen. Part of the reason there are higher CO2 levels is because humans keep cutting down all the forests. Another small part is due to automobiles that emit CO2 (and water) after the advent of catalytic converters.
Therefore, more trees will use up excess CO2 levels. (BTW, I know you were kidding, just didn't want any liberals going off on a tangent :D).

Hence the reason I took two astronomy courses and a geology course in college...I never was any good at chemistry or biology.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Wait, wait, one day you argue that global warming isn't caused by man, and then you say that it is non-existent (at least in the title of the thread.) Nice article though, but it kind of makes people like me wonder what would happen if there were no government regulations on emissions in vehicles, factories, and CFC's. I know we still put out a substantial amount, but a lot less than it used to be.

[sww-bull52]

Originally posted by shankbear
the politicians' hot air is one of the biggest causes of global warming. Globally boring.




:clap: :clap: :p

[Keith7]

I hope global warming isn't true, but all scientific and logical reasoning seems to point to it being true.. I just hope conservatives wake up and open their eyes before its too late..

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Keith7
I hope global warming isn't true, but all scientific and logical reasoning seems to point to it being true.. I just hope conservatives wake up and open their eyes before its too late.. Global warming happens. Nobody is arguing that. What's debatable is who or what is causing it.

[Emerson1]

That hardly debunks global warming, you can use different facts and numbers to support it either way.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Global warming happens. Nobody is arguing that. What's debatable is who or what is causing it.

The thread title states that global warming was debunked, that means that it was proven to be false last time I checked....

[shankbear]

Global warming is for real. It is the cause of global warming that is at question. To simply blame human kind for this is pretty presumptious. The earth has gone through cooling and warming cycles of a much greater scale than what is getting Gore's panties in a wad.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
The thread title states that global warming was debunked, that means that it was proven to be false last time I checked.... But if you read what Billy's talking about, he's talking about man caused global warming.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
But if you read what Billy's talking about, he's talking about man caused global warming.

I know that, but Keith probably didn't want to go through and read what was posted, just took the title for face value. I was just giving you his reasoning behind it. Look at what I posted on page one and I brought it up earlier, the title is misleading.

[SintonFan]

Al Gore spoke to a convention of architects a couple of weeks ago. Why did he choose to do that? I say he fibs. lol
Look:
.
Gore sees 'spiritual crisis' in warming

Anton Caputo EXPRESS-NEWS STAFF WRITER

Publication Date : May 6, 2007

Playing equal parts visionary, cheerleader and comedian, Al Gore brought his message of how to fight global warming to a capacity crowd of receptive architects Saturday in San Antonio.
The former vice president referred continually to a "new way of thinking" that is emerging in the country and offered hope in the battle to control the effects global warming will have on the planet.

"It's in part a spiritual crisis," Gore told the crowd in the Convention Center at the American Institute of Architects national convention. "It's a crisis of our own self-definition -- who we are. Are we creatures destined to destroy our own species? Clearly not."

Global warming is the heating of the Earth caused in large part by man-made emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Most scientists agree such warming and the changing climate that comes with it will likely cause a number of problems and crises this century, particularly in developing countries that have few resources to combat the effects.

These looming problems involve flooding and severe coastal erosion from rising seas and increasingly severe storms, more common and prolonged drought, and changes in the growing seasons and migration patterns of many wild species.

Gore told the architects they are in a unique position to help solve the problems by continuing to push building standards and methods that conserve energy and water. The message was in line with the focus of this year's AIA conference, titled "Growing Beyond Green."

Gore, seen by some as a polarizing political figure, has long championed environmental issues. In 1992, he wrote the best-selling book "Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit," and he won an Academy Award this year for his film "An Inconvenient Truth."

His speech was often interrupted by thunderous applause and explosive laughter from the several thousand architects who packed the Convention Center's ballroom.

"I used to be the next president of the United States," Gore deadpanned to the laughing crowd as he introduced himself. "I don't find that funny. Put yourself in my position. I flew in Air Force Two for eight years. Now I have to take off my shoes to get on an airplane."

In between jokes, Gore called for a change in thinking about climate issues and the pollution that causes global warming. He was especially critical of the business community's current focus on quarterly profits at the expense of sustainable business practices.

"That's functionally insane, but that is the dominant reality in the world today," Gore said.

This struck a chord with the architects at Saturday's event because many environmentally friendly building practices cost more upfront, which makes them a harder sell, but end up costing much less over the lifetime of a building.

Gore's speech came on the heels of a report issued by the United Nations' International Panel on Climate Change that concluded cutting greenhouse gas emissions enough to eliminate the worst impacts of climate change is affordable. The international group put the cost at 0.12 percent of economic growth each year.

Among the solutions Gore touted Saturday were a cap-and-trade system for carbon dioxide. This is the method of controlling greenhouse gases pushed by the international Kyoto Protocol, an international effort to fight global warming that the United Sates chose not to join in 2001.

Gore also called for a business pollution tax that would be used to offset or eliminate employment and payroll taxes and for the creation of a federal mortgage institution that would help offset the cost of building environmentally friendly homes.

On the request of Gore's media handlers, Saturday's event was closed to the media. Because of the importance of the issue and Gore's status, the San Antonio Express-News chose to cover it anyway.

acaputo@express-news.net
.
.
Part 2 to come...:nerd:

[Pudlugger]

Originally posted by Keith7
I hope global warming isn't true, but all scientific and logical reasoning seems to point to it being true.. I just hope conservatives wake up and open their eyes before its too late..

No, all scientific and logical reasoning does not point to it being true. You are displaying astonishing ignorance to state such a stunningly false assertion. In fact, when proponents of such a controversial theory state that all evidence is in and there is no room for debate, then you can rest assured they have lost the debate and are simply trying to shut it down. Journalists should be required to take at least as much science courses in college as a secondary science teacher, especially when they no longer "report" on matters but now advocate on scientific and economic issues. The same can be said for commentary on political and public policy matters.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
I know that, but Keith probably didn't want to go through and read what was posted, just took the title for face value. I was just giving you his reasoning behind it. Look at what I posted on page one and I brought it up earlier, the title is misleading. True. The thread title is misleading.

[Keith7]

Global Warming is true, co2 is the cause for it, I'm not going to argue w/ the copy and paste crew... There could be all the evidence in the world that says that man is the cause of global warming and you guys will still find some oddball website claiming that man has nothing to do with the rising tempurature and then copy and paste it and then claim that "Global warming is false"..

[Pudlugger]

Most of the 1 degree rise in temperature in the 20th century occurred before 1940. Much of the temperature increments are artifacts from the increased surface temperatures around the temperature monitoring sites due to urbanization. Pavement replacing open land results in trapped heat and higher surface temperature recordings. The monitoring sites have been located in the same place and urbanization occuring around them has been significant over this past century.The models do not take this into consideration. Ocean and atmospheric measurements are contradictory and less reliable. While the glacial mass in the Antarctic Peninsula may be shrinking the ice layer is thickening over the mainland areas. There is plenty of error in the various computer models to question the varacity of "Global Warming". Let me know when climatologists can predict the weather next week accurately and I'll be surprised.

[Keith7]

Originally posted by Pudlugger
Most of the 1 degree rise in temperature in the 20th century occurred before 1940. Much of the temperature increments are artifacts from the increased surface temperatures around the temperature monitoring sites due to urbanization. Pavement replacing open land results in trapped heat and higher surface temperature recordings. The monitoring sites have been located in the same place and urbanization occuring around them has been significant over this past century.The models do not take this into consideration. Ocean and atmospheric measurements are contradictory and less reliable. While the glacial mass in the Antarctic Peninsula may be shrinking the ice layer is thickening over the mainland areas. There is plenty of error in the various computer models to question the varacity of "Global Warming". Let me know when climatologists can predict the weather next week accurately and I'll be surprised.



lol :doh: :clap: :clap: :clap: This post alone shows me how lost you guys really are

[Pudlugger]

Originally posted by Keith7
Global Warming is true, co2 is the cause for it, I'm not going to argue w/ the copy and paste crew... There could be all the evidence in the world that says that man is the cause of global warming and you guys will still find some oddball website claiming that man has nothing to do with the rising tempurature and then copy and paste it and then claim that "Global warming is false"..

No point in discussing the facts with you. You have made up your mind and the debate is over. Just like Gore, Davis, Crowe and all the other "experts".:hand:

[Keith7]

Originally posted by Pudlugger
No point in discussing the facts with you. You have made up your mind and the debate is over. Just like Gore, Davis, Crowe and all the other "experts".:hand:

I've taken climatology, meteorology, and astronomy all of them discussed global warming, and based on what I have learned global warming is very real and all evidence points to man causing it.. I just don't understand how man can be so stubborn to realize his own fault and help the cause of finding alternative fuels..

[Pudlugger]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Wait, wait, one day you argue that global warming isn't caused by man, and then you say that it is non-existent (at least in the title of the thread.) Nice article though, but it kind of makes people like me wonder what would happen if there were no government regulations on emissions in vehicles, factories, and CFC's. I know we still put out a substantial amount, but a lot less than it used to be.

You mean like China? They have a centrally regulated economy, Communism, yet they are rapidly industrializing their country and have little regard for safety, environmental protection, emmission controls and the like. Good public policy requires some balance between regulation and free markets and it is at that interface that this debate rages. We should be careful not to cripple our economy unnecessarily over theories that are not sound.

C02 is not pollution. Pollution is bad. C02 is for the most part good as it is the essential nutrient in plant metabolism, photosynthesis which has oxygen as a byproduct {not to mention food and other biologic byproducts such as wood, paper, medicines, and so forth}. Moderate temperature rises could have many benefiicial effects on crop production and world wide famine relief. Most of the hysteria about oceans rising and coastal cities flooding is just plain bs.

[Macarthur]

Originally posted by Pudlugger
You mean like China? They have a centrally regulated economy, Communism, yet they are rapidly industrializing their country and have little regard for safety, environmental protection, emmission controls and the like. Good public policy requires some balance between regulation and free markets and it is at that interface that this debate rages. We should be careful not to cripple our economy unnecessarily over theories that are not sound.

I agree.


C02 is not pollution. Pollution is bad. C02 is for the most part good as it is the essential nutrient in plant metabolism, photosynthesis which has oxygen as a byproduct {not to mention food and other biologic byproducts such as wood, paper, medicines, and so forth}. Moderate temperature rises could have many benefiicial effects on crop production and world wide famine relief. Most of the hysteria about oceans rising and coastal cities flooding is just plain bs.

Here's where I differ. We don't know this to be true. To say some warmer temps would be good for plants so it would be good for us is taking a risk. One thing I know for sure is that this climate is good for us. I don't know if a warmer one would so I see it as conservative to do what we can to keep it as close to current level as we can.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by Keith7
Global Warming is true, co2 is the cause for it, I'm not going to argue w/ the copy and paste crew... There could be all the evidence in the world that says that man is the cause of global warming and you guys will still find some oddball website claiming that man has nothing to do with the rising tempurature and then copy and paste it and then claim that "Global warming is false"..

Global warming is true. CO2 is not the cause. There is no proof to that statement. It is theorized however that CO2 and temp seem to go up together in cycles but CO2 lags behind the temp curve. For instance, in the cool down in the twentieth, CO2 continued up on a good curve while Temperature went down for 30 years on a steep curve. What is suggested is that CO2 is an effect rather than cause. In other words, when it gets warmer, the oceans release larger amounts of CO2.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Keith7
all evidence points to man causing it. This statement alone tells me that you only see what you want to. "All" evidence would include...well...all the evidence. And all the evidence doesn't support man caused global warming. Some of it does and some of it doesn't. It just depends on how much stock you put into certain studies and certain "experts".

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by Keith7
Global Warming is true, co2 is the cause for it, I'm not going to argue w/ the copy and paste crew... There could be all the evidence in the world that says that man is the cause of global warming and you guys will still find some oddball website claiming that man has nothing to do with the rising tempurature and then copy and paste it and then claim that "Global warming is false"..

The simple truth is that global warming has been occuring for at least the last 10000 years. Now, my simple logical question for the man blame group is at what point did man take over on the warming issue? Or in other words, since the world has been warming for the last 10000 plus years, was man the cause of it then? If not, then why is he now when the science clearly shows that only .3 percent of GH gasses is due to man made contributions? It would seem to disinclude man as a primary cause and make him only a minor secondary contributor. And if He can only contribute .3 percent, it is reasonable to assume that he can reduce output of perhaps 10 percent of his contribution.
Or roughly .03 percent. My stipulation is that there is no way man can alter the climate to any significant measurement based on the facts and theories of the last 10000 plus years based strictly on GH gasses.
Then include the fact that most temperature recording stations are concrete island locked recording stations that artificially raise the mean temp( airports and cities have most of the accurate data in the United States, and the US has the most accurate data in the world.) and I would conclude that some of the current data is artificially inflated. I know for example that I live 15 miles from the DFW official site. I know for a fact that there is always a temperature difference and most of the time it is a 2 or 3 degree drop in difference from the recording station to Celina.

[UPanIN]

Global warming has been happening since the last ICE AGE.:hand:

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by Macarthur
I agree.



Here's where I differ. We don't know this to be true. To say some warmer temps would be good for plants so it would be good for us is taking a risk. One thing I know for sure is that this climate is good for us. I don't know if a warmer one would so I see it as conservative to do what we can to keep it as close to current level as we can.

This argument is the most flawed argument of all. The climate NEVER stays static. It is in constant motion. To attempt to maintain any climate is not only impossible, but likely to be more damaging in the long run since we do not know with any certainty
what would be considered the "best" climate for the entire world.

[Macarthur]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
This argument is the most flawed argument of all. The climate NEVER stays static. It is in constant motion. To attempt to maintain any climate is not only impossible, but likely to be more damaging in the long run since we do not know with any certainty
what would be considered the "best" climate for the entire world.

I know it's not constant. My point was that if we have the means to keep it within a range that we know is "livable", we should do that.

My main point was to say that I do not like the cavalier attitude that "hey, let it get warmer because it will be good for plants, so hell, we can end world hunger..." I view that as a very dangerous attitude. It just seems to me that many of the "people are not responsible" crowd tend to lean too far the other way and think we can do whatever the hell we want because there will be no consequences.

[mistanice]

I think the Chinese are on to something although it's on a small scale.



China to Force Rain Ahead of Olympics
Chance of showers during the 2008 Beijing Olympics: 50 percent. But Chinese meteorologists have a plan to bring sunshine.

The meteorologists say they can force rain in the days before the Olympics, through a process known as cloud-seeding, to clean the air and ensure clear skies. China has been tinkering with artificial rainmaking for decades, but whether it works is a matter of debate among scientists.

Weather patterns for the past 30 years indicate there is a 50 percent chance of rain for both the opening ceremony on Aug. 8, 2008 and the closing ceremony two weeks later, said Wang Yubin, an engineer with the Beijing Meteorological Bureau.

[Reds fan]

Originally posted by Keith7
I've taken climatology, meteorology, and astronomy all of them discussed global warming, and based on what I have learned global warming is very real and all evidence points to man causing it.. I just don't understand how man can be so stubborn to realize his own fault and help the cause of finding alternative fuels..

I can see where Keith feels this way since the media has concluded that the debate is over and will NEVER report on any findings contrary to the new religion of "man-made global warming". The debate ended in the mind of the media when Gore's "documentary" an "Inconvenient Truth" became gospel.

What is scary is that so many people have become so close minded to open honest debate.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by Macarthur
I know it's not constant. My point was that if we have the means to keep it within a range that we know is "livable", we should do that.

My main point was to say that I do not like the cavalier attitude that "hey, let it get warmer because it will be good for plants, so hell, we can end world hunger..." I view that as a very dangerous attitude. It just seems to me that many of the "people are not responsible" crowd tend to lean too far the other way and think we can do whatever the hell we want because there will be no consequences.

In strict scientific terms there are no consequences. We are already on the path to greater pollution control and cleaner burning fuels and have been for 40 years. The developing countries however have done very little of that. Yet inspite of all that has happened, nothing untoward has happened to indicate any kind of a consequence whatsoever. A modest increase of 1 degree most of which occurred between 1900 and 1940 shows that over a 100 year period very little difference has occurred.
The simple truth is the science is not provable and even if it were
the socio economics cannot be predicted.
100 years ago the city of New York was struggling mightily with it's own transportation and pollution issue. Where were the people of the future going to get enough horses to ride, and what were they going to do with all the horse manure lining the streets?.
How about this story? sound familiar? The Boston Globe predicted
incorrectly btw that we were on the way to a massive world wide oil shortage. Of course the shortage they were referring to was whale oil and the article was written in the late 18th century circa
1787.
Each time the world was going to come to an end because people have no vision of the future only the issues of the past.
Simply put there is no way to predict what we will be using as an energy source 100 years from now and how that will affect the world as we know it could and probably will be radically different from the problems occurring today.

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by Pudlugger
You mean like China? They have a centrally regulated economy, Communism, yet they are rapidly industrializing their country and have little regard for safety, environmental protection, emmission controls and the like. Good public policy requires some balance between regulation and free markets and it is at that interface that this debate rages. We should be careful not to cripple our economy unnecessarily over theories that are not sound.

C02 is not pollution. Pollution is bad. C02 is for the most part good as it is the essential nutrient in plant metabolism, photosynthesis which has oxygen as a byproduct {not to mention food and other biologic byproducts such as wood, paper, medicines, and so forth}. Moderate temperature rises could have many benefiicial effects on crop production and world wide famine relief. Most of the hysteria about oceans rising and coastal cities flooding is just plain bs.

Why not? I mean most of our civil rights are becoming more and more regulated....

Ok that was way off tangent. On with what I was going to say

My theory is that global warming is very real, and rather than sit back and wait for a possible disaster I say we pull our heads together and find out how to fix the problem. What do we have to lose? If we are wrong and global warming does not exist then we still have new alternative fuels and more energy efficient homes. If we are right we are still doing something for the betterment of not only ourselves, but the rest of the world also. There is not enough evidence to say for sure which side is 100 percent correct, but I would rather do something and be wrong than do nothing and be wrong. This is a slippery slope if we choose to do nothing and in fact man made emissions are the cause. Just think about it. Right or wrong, is doing something that will help out our environment such a bad thing? I mean most people recycle, or atleast claim to, so why would doing something like that on a bigger scale be such a terrible thing? Whether or not you believe in global warming would doing any of these things be such a detriment to who you are?

[BILLYFRED0000]

I just love the slippery slop argument. The gist of the reality is there is nothing we can do. Mankind's total contribution to GH
gasses is .3 percent. Since we need Green house gases to keep our world from freezing and since we only make 3 tenths of a percentage of that contribution, I would say we are not making any. Hence no slope to slip on. Any enforced regulations could be
counter productive. Or in other words, we don't know if we are helping or hurting, and by the numbers I would suggest short of igniting every nuke we have in a super volcano, we do not effect the long term climate of this planet in any significant way. In fact,
we cannot at our current level of technology. And besides, 99.97 percent of the gh gasses are beyond our control and ultmately control the climate. Not the .3 percent.

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
I just love the slippery slop argument. The gist of the reality is there is nothing we can do. Mankind's total contribution to GH
gasses is .3 percent. Since we need Green house gases to keep our world from freezing and since we only make 3 tenths of a percentage of that contribution, I would say we are not making any. Hence no slope to slip on. Any enforced regulations could be
counter productive. Or in other words, we don't know if we are helping or hurting, and by the numbers I would suggest short of igniting every nuke we have in a super volcano, we do not effect the long term climate of this planet in any significant way. In fact,
we cannot at our current level of technology. And besides, 99.97 percent of the gh gasses are beyond our control and ultmately control the climate. Not the .3 percent.

So basically you guys were calling out keith for not relenting in his opinion and called him narrowminded, then the same is in effect for you as well? That is basically what you are saying. All I know is that with the growing population and the increased production of emissions in the last 200 years I tend to believe there is some lasting effect it can and will most likely have on planet Earth. Call me narrow minded, and I am open to fact, but I have not seen enough to call any of it fact. Just opinioins and theories from both sides. I choose my own logic on this one. That is why I believe it is a possibility. This earth is magnificent, but how long can it withstand the growing population, and the emissions we as human kind emit? Especially with the forests that are being mowed down, more factories and production plants, and auto vehicles driving all over the place. I choose to err on the side of caution on this one. And it will take more than a few articles you find and paste to change my mind. No offense to your argument, aand there is a chance you are right, but right now there is no concrete evidente.

[DDBooger]

i too am holdin my opinion. my geology prof has his doubts but he doesn't dismiss it. nature is funny like that. plankton are what 1 in millions of species. so small you can hardly see em, but if they disappear it would have HUGE ramifications. there is a balance in nature that if altered has effects. are we tilting it enough? is our addition the straw that broke the camels back? the jury is still out!

[sinton66]

but right now there is no concrete evidente.

You wouldn't know that to listen to algore and the rest of the Cali/envirowackos. They're screaming they have all the evidence. Truth is they're operating from a THEORY as well. The real truth is nobody knows for sure because there is no way to tell for sure. Current effects may not be known for another 500 years.

I agree about the trees. They are probably the key factor in most of this. I'm a firm believer in planting more trees, I like oxygen.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by rockdale80
My theory is that global warming is very real, and rather than sit back and wait for a possible disaster I say we pull our heads together and find out how to fix the problem. What do we have to lose? If we are wrong and global warming does not exist then we still have new alternative fuels and more energy efficient homes. If we are right we are still doing something for the betterment of not only ourselves, but the rest of the world also. There is not enough evidence to say for sure which side is 100 percent correct, but I would rather do something and be wrong than do nothing and be wrong. This is a slippery slope if we choose to do nothing and in fact man made emissions are the cause. Just think about it. Right or wrong, is doing something that will help out our environment such a bad thing? I mean most people recycle, or atleast claim to, so why would doing something like that on a bigger scale be such a terrible thing? Whether or not you believe in global warming would doing any of these things be such a detriment to who you are? RD80,

I don't think most of us are saying don't do anything. I'm all for making our air cleaner and researching alternative fuels. What I'm against are the scare tactics used by the wacko liberals. "The debate is over." Really? I thought we were just getting started.

Most of the proposals by these wackos involve changing our industry overnight, meanwhile leaving other counties unaffected. I think this is a very dangerous idea. The argument of "I'd rather err on the side of caution" doesn't take into account the destruction of our economy in the process if we do what they suggest.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by sinton66
I like oxygen. I'm a pretty big fan myself.:D

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
RD80,

I don't think most of us are saying don't do anything. I'm all for making our air cleaner and researching alternative fuels. What I'm against are the scare tactics used by the wacko liberals. "The debate is over." Really? I thought we were just getting started.

Most of the proposals by these wackos involve changing our industry overnight, meanwhile leaving other counties unaffected. I think this is a very dangerous idea. The argument of "I'd rather err on the side of caution" doesn't take into account the destruction of our economy in the process if we do what they suggest. hows connecting the destruction of the economy not a scare tactic? i agree with you assertion that we just don't know enough but to accuse others of scare tactics and respond in kind just seems cyclical

[Hupernikomen]

This figure you keep throwing around about water vapour being 97% of the green house effect is highly debateable.

No doubt global warming is way over stressed and we certainly do need more data and all of the data for the public to have an informed opinion. Documentaries such as Gore's are notorious for ignoring the facts and slanting data to "prove" their point of view. Someone mentioned the idea of greenies being a religion, and I agree. Some of these scientist don't operate on "theories" or even facts, but on "beliefs."

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by DDBooger
hows connecting the destruction of the economy not a scare tactic? i agree with you assertion that we just don't know enough but to accuse others of scare tactics and respond in kind just seems cyclical Just look at the Kyoto Agreement that the wacko libs want us to sign and tell me that wouldn't destroy our economy.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by DDBooger
i too am holdin my opinion. my geology prof has his doubts but he doesn't dismiss it. nature is funny like that. plankton are what 1 in millions of species. so small you can hardly see em, but if they disappear it would have HUGE ramifications. there is a balance in nature that if altered has effects. are we tilting it enough? is our addition the straw that broke the camels back? the jury is still out!

I do not entirely disagree. However after extensive study, the whole CO2 thing is a red herring. Water vapor is the Mac Daddy
of the green house gasses running at about 95 percent of all GH gasses. If it was not for that Our rock would be at about -18 degrees centigrade. So forgive me if I tend to think that 3 tenths of one percent of the gas in the atmosphere that we contribute has any lasting effects. Now start on deforestation and land usage and maybe there is something. But not much. The simple truth is that the data is so lacking there is not much proof either way. But Al Gore would say see we are warming up and it is all our fault. If so, please explain to me who was doing the warming
over the last 10000 years before the SUV came along.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by Hupernikomen
This figure you keep throwing around about water vapour being 97% of the green house effect is highly debateable.

No doubt global warming is way over stressed and we certainly do need more data and all of the data for the public to have an informed opinion. Documentaries such as Gore's are notorious for ignoring the facts and slanting data to "prove" their point of view. Someone mentioned the idea of greenies being a religion, and I agree. Some of these scientist don't operate on "theories" or even facts, but on "beliefs."

And how do you determine that it is debatable..... BTW I us 95 percent of the total green house gasses. Note that is not 95 percent of the gasses in the atmosphere.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
I do not entirely disagree. However after extensive study, the whole CO2 thing is a red herring. Water vapor is the Mac Daddy
of the green house gasses running at about 95 percent of all GH gasses. If it was not for that Our rock would be at about -18 degrees centigrade. So forgive me if I tend to think that 3 tenths of one percent of the gas in the atmosphere that we contribute has any lasting effects. Now start on deforestation and land usage and maybe there is something. But not much. The simple truth is that the data is so lacking there is not much proof either way. But Al Gore would say see we are warming up and it is all our fault. If so, please explain to me who was doing the warming
over the last 10000 years before the SUV came along. fair enough, we may never know!

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by DDBooger
fair enough, we may never know!

I think we will someday. Right now the problem lies in 2 parts.
Data and Data correlation.

Data is simply the info we need to make use of to determine possible correlations. I could spend hours just on temperature data alone but will condense a certain amount of info just to scratch the surface.
All temperature data is suspect except in perhaps the last 50 years. Allow me to explain. We depend on data from recorded temperatures from all over the globe. Now suppose it was a bright sunny winter day in northern Siberia at -40 with a wind chill
of minus 80 back when you had to go to the box to get the data yourself. No fancy electronics. I think it is safe to say you might just scratch in a number that sounds good and drink some more vodka to keep warm. Or how about Africa. In the middle of some of those brutal wars who is keeping track and exactly how accurate is the data? Then there is the problem with the location of the official sites. In the US we use big cities and airports way too much. The temperature differential on a given day from DFW to my house in Celina can vary as much as 5 degrees. But the DFW goes on record. Pretty large variance. Moving on to data
correlation.

The simple truth is that our models are grid maps of forecasting that climatologists then massage and adjust to recreate past climates and predict future climates. Did you know that not one single model with all the data we have has yet recreated just the last 50 years of weather? We have all the data that some would say we need to prove we are responsible for Global Warming but cannot even recreate a known weather cycle with all the data we have on any model we currently can run. Things that make you go HMMMMMMMM???

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
I think we will someday. Right now the problem lies in 2 parts.
Data and Data correlation.

Data is simply the info we need to make use of to determine possible correlations. I could spend hours just on temperature data alone but will condense a certain amount of info just to scratch the surface.
All temperature data is suspect except in perhaps the last 50 years. Allow me to explain. We depend on data from recorded temperatures from all over the globe. Now suppose it was a bright sunny winter day in northern Siberia at -40 with a wind chill
of minus 80 back when you had to go to the box to get the data yourself. No fancy electronics. I think it is safe to say you might just scratch in a number that sounds good and drink some more vodka to keep warm. Or how about Africa. In the middle of some of those brutal wars who is keeping track and exactly how accurate is the data? Then there is the problem with the location of the official sites. In the US we use big cities and airports way too much. The temperature differential on a given day from DFW to my house in Celina can vary as much as 5 degrees. But the DFW goes on record. Pretty large variance. Moving on to data
correlation.

The simple truth is that our models are grid maps of forecasting that climatologists then massage and adjust to recreate past climates and predict future climates. Did you know that not one single model with all the data we have has yet recreated just the last 50 years of weather? We have all the data that the wackos say we need to prove we are responsible for Global Warming but cannot even recreate a known weather cycle with all the data we have on any model we currently can run. Things that make you go HMMMMMMMM??? i think as long as its politicized people will look at the data with a biased eye. numbers can be manipulated to someone's argument. your fervent nature and bashing of the greenies doesn't lend more credibility to you, let the facts speak for themselves, you have better points but cloud it with disdain. I believe what you are saying but unfortunately unless people take the time to do THEIR OWN research and OWN their knowledge you'll always have sides based more on politics than fact. crying shame if you ask me. i wish it concerned me more, or at least enough to study it, but between what I have to read and what i choose to read i can't find the time ;) i think you can tone the rhetoric down a notch, you make outstanding points without the use of "crazies" and "wackos" ;)

[BILLYFRED0000]

I agree. But since I am not really trying to impress anybody here
I let the wacko's slip out. I have spent a serious amount of time in weather study starting back when everyone said we were heading for the next ice age(early 70's). It is a hobby and one that I enjoy. I only show disdain for those that have already decided. People with an open mind willing to share is an entirely different prospect.

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
RD80,

I don't think most of us are saying don't do anything. I'm all for making our air cleaner and researching alternative fuels. What I'm against are the scare tactics used by the wacko liberals. "The debate is over." Really? I thought we were just getting started.

Most of the proposals by these wackos involve changing our industry overnight, meanwhile leaving other counties unaffected. I think this is a very dangerous idea. The argument of "I'd rather err on the side of caution" doesn't take into account the destruction of our economy in the process if we do what they suggest.

As opposed to wacko conservtives using scare tactics to take us to war saying if it isnt over there it will be in your backyard? Not the same thing, but it is the same ideology. Look my point is that the basic principle of with every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, and that is the point. I dont think that the democrats are all trying to use scare tactics, but this debate has been going on for sometime now. I think it is a self evident truth that there will be consequences to the way we treat the earth now. I dont think it would tailspin the economy to invest in more alternative fuels, nor do I think it is a bad to start over night. I think that it would make the petroleum industry more competitive and free up the monopoly that they have on transportation. Would it be a bad thing to have cheaper cleaner burning fuel? I know it sounds rhetotical and it should. Would doing any of these things be a bad thing? Argue global warming all you want to, but the bottom line is that somewhere down the line there will be consequneces somewhere. Even if you take nothing from this, think about our freedom from dependency on foreign pertoleum. Even if you dont want to do it for the environment do it for your pocketbook. I see this as a no brainer. What could it hurt to make a conscious effort to take care of this planet or the people around you?

[Emerson1]

Any of y'all swear you have any clue on what you are talking about.

[Hupernikomen]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
And how do you determine that it is debatable..... BTW I us 95 percent of the total green house gasses. Note that is not 95 percent of the gasses in the atmosphere.

And you will notice that I said that caused the green house effenct not of gases in the atomsphere. Having taught AP Chemistry I am quiet aware of the composition of the atomsphere.

According to wikipedia:

Water vapor is a naturally occurring greenhouse gas and accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 90%

(that is a wide range--looks debateable to me.)

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect --another online source

From Encarta: Water vapor is the most common greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, accounting for about 60 to 70 percent of the natural greenhouse effect

From PBS: On a clear day, water vapor can comprise 60 to 70 percent of the greenhouse effect. Next in line, carbon dioxide contributes an additional 25 percent.

~~~

After reading several "sources" it seems the "experts" are saying that on a cloudless day that water vapor contributes to 60 to 70 percent of the green house effect with Carbon Dioxide contributing the majority of the rest of the effect. On a cloudy day Water vapor appears to be in the 90 percentile of the effect. Evidence seems to supports that Carbon dioxide levels have increased since the industrial revolution. Proving what effect that has had on the earth's climate is a different debate. (Or at least it use to be before major media accepted it as gospel)

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by rockdale80
As opposed to wacko conservtives using scare tactics to take us to war saying if it isnt over there it will be in your backyard? Not the same thing, but it is the same ideology. Look my point is that the basic principle of with every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, and that is the point. I dont think that the democrats are all trying to use scare tactics, but this debate has been going on for sometime now. I think it is a self evident truth that there will be consequences to the way we treat the earth now. I dont think it would tailspin the economy to invest in more alternative fuels, nor do I think it is a bad to start over night. I think that it would make the petroleum industry more competitive and free up the monopoly that they have on transportation. Would it be a bad thing to have cheaper cleaner burning fuel? I know it sounds rhetotical and it should. Would doing any of these things be a bad thing? Argue global warming all you want to, but the bottom line is that somewhere down the line there will be consequneces somewhere. Even if you take nothing from this, think about our freedom from dependency on foreign pertoleum. Even if you dont want to do it for the environment do it for your pocketbook. I see this as a no brainer. What could it hurt to make a conscious effort to take care of this planet or the people around you? I agree with most of what you are saying. I don't like our dependence on foreign oil, nor the oil companies monopoly on our transit system. I think we should invest in alternative fuel sources.

However, in the mean time we need to start drilling in that arctic wasteland the environmentalist wackos won't let us touch.

I do stand by my statement on the Kyoto agreement. If we entered into that agreement, we would lower our output of greenhouse gases, but in the process we would severely handicap our economy. Meanwhile China and India would continue to produce more and more greenhouse gases and continue to produce more and more products (using slave wages by the way). Just think about what that would do to the trade deficit. More and more companies would start shipping industry and jobs overseas to escape all the regulations.

[Pudlugger]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
I agree with most of what you are saying. I don't like our dependence on foreign oil, nor the oil companies monopoly on our transit system. I think we should invest in alternative fuel sources.

However, in the mean time we need to start drilling in that arctic wasteland the environmentalist wackos won't let us touch.

I do stand by my statement on the Kyoto agreement. If we entered into that agreement, we would lower our output of greenhouse gases, but in the process we would severely handicap our economy. Meanwhile China and India would continue to produce more and more greenhouse gases and continue to produce more and more products (using slave wages by the way). Just think about what that would do to the trade deficit. More and more companies would start shipping industry and jobs overseas to escape all the regulations.

Exactly right!

[Macarthur]

Here's some balance on this issue:

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/mg18524861.400

http://www6.miami.edu/UMH/CDA/UMH_Main/1,1770,2593-1;41812-3,00.html

http://www.greenfacts.org/studies/climate_change/l_3/climate_change_8.htm#3

I know many on here like to point to the fact that the warming can be attributed to water vapor and we have no control/effect.

Actually, if you read some of these things, they speak of feedback and an amplification of water vapor due to the increase of greenhouse gases. So your stace that it's all about the water vapor is really only a half-truth. The increase of greenhouse gases has a multiplier effect on the water vapor.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Macarthur
Here's some balance on this issue:

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/mg18524861.400

http://www6.miami.edu/UMH/CDA/UMH_Main/1,1770,2593-1;41812-3,00.html

http://www.greenfacts.org/studies/climate_change/l_3/climate_change_8.htm#3

I know many on here like to point to the fact that the warming can be attributed to water vapor and we have no control/effect.

Actually, if you read some of these things, they speak of feedback and an amplification of water vapor due to the increase of greenhouse gases. So your stace that it's all about the water vapor is really only a half-truth. The increase of greenhouse gases has a multiplier effect on the water vapor. BUT, studies also show that CO2 historically lags rising temperatures. If you want me to dig up that research, just let me know.

[Macarthur]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
BUT, studies also show that CO2 historically lags rising temperatures. If you want me to dig up that research, just let me know.

It doesn't always lag. I've done some reading on this and this lag you guys like to speak of has not been definitavely established. This article gives some possible explainations.

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/03/yet_more_tco2_lags.php

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Macarthur
I've done some reading on this and this lag you guys like to speak of has not been definitavely established. Just as man caused global warming has not been definitively established. More research (non political) must be done.

[Pudlugger]

Push to add $30 climate fee to domestic flights

Wendy Frew Environment Reporter
May 23, 2007


A $30 GREENHOUSE gas fee should be added to all domestic flights, and aviation should be included in any emissions trading scheme if Australia is to curb its climate change pollution, a report says.

Airlines were a threat to the climate because of rising levels of greenhouse gas pollution generated by a growing travel market, said the report by the think tank the Australia Institute.

Aviation is growing so fast it could account for more than half of the country's total greenhouse gas emissions by the middle of this century, said the report, written by Andrew Macintosh and Christian Downie.

But because non-carbon dioxide greenhouse gases and greenhouse gases generated by international travel are not included in the greenhouse gas inventory, aviation pollution could wipe out the effect of cuts in emissions in other sectors, they said.

"We are going to have to fly a hell of a lot less, and it is going to cost us more," Mr Macintosh said.

A taskforce of business leaders, including the departing Qantas chairwoman Margaret Jackson, is expected to deliver recommendations on a trading system to the Prime Minister, John Howard, next week.

However, like the European emissions trading scheme, it is expected to exclude aviation from any pollution penalties.

In March the Government announced measures to cut aviation emissions, such as improved fuel efficiency and improved air traffic control sequencing.

Mr Macintosh welcomed them, but said some of the measures were already in place and the Government appeared to have failed to understand the magnitude of the problem.

"In terms of where we need to go, the Government hasn't done anything like near what needs to be done," he said.

In Britain and Europe, the issue has garnered more attention because of the boom in discount airlines and a sharp rise in the number of flights taken.

Environmental groups and some governments have asked Europeans to abandon long-distance flights, aviation fuel taxes are being considered and the European Union is planning to include aviation in its emissions trading scheme.

In Britain, if aviation continues to grow at present rates, the Government will fail to hit its target of cutting emissions by 60 per cent by 2050.

In Australia, domestic and international air passenger numbers are expected to grow at 4.6 and 5.1 per cent, respectively per annum between 2005 and 2020, "ensuring a doubling of passenger numbers in 15 years," the report said.

The authors' calculations found that Australia's current aviation emissions were between 3 and 5 per cent of total emissions.

However, if the sector was allowed to continue polluting without penalties and Australia adopted a target of reducing emissions to 60 per cent below 2000 levels by 2050, aviation could account for as much as 51 per cent of the total greenhouse gas allowance.

"Irrespective of which policy instruments are implemented to curtail aviation emissions, Australians cannot expect to fly more than they currently do today," it concluded.

Pudlugger:

Well Keith7 and MacArthur here is some of the reality that we were alluding to earlier. I'm 61 years old and this nonsense will only make my Golden Years annoying but it is your future that is being robbed by these charlatans. I hope you feel real good when you have to pay your hard earned money for "carbon offsets" which will go to some kleptocrat in a third world country for not building a road or an airport. If I wasn't concerned about my children and grand children's future it would be funny.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by Hupernikomen
And you will notice that I said that caused the green house effenct not of gases in the atomsphere. Having taught AP Chemistry I am quiet aware of the composition of the atomsphere.

According to wikipedia:

Water vapor is a naturally occurring greenhouse gas and accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 90%

(that is a wide range--looks debateable to me.)

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect --another online source

From Encarta: Water vapor is the most common greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, accounting for about 60 to 70 percent of the natural greenhouse effect

From PBS: On a clear day, water vapor can comprise 60 to 70 percent of the greenhouse effect. Next in line, carbon dioxide contributes an additional 25 percent.

~~~

After reading several "sources" it seems the "experts" are saying that on a cloudless day that water vapor contributes to 60 to 70 percent of the green house effect with Carbon Dioxide contributing the majority of the rest of the effect. On a cloudy day Water vapor appears to be in the 90 percentile of the effect. Evidence seems to supports that Carbon dioxide levels have increased since the industrial revolution. Proving what effect that has had on the earth's climate is a different debate. (Or at least it use to be before major media accepted it as gospel)

And what about in the middle of a down pour. Oh the whole world is cloudless all at the same time and it could be 60 - 70.
Since that never happens it would appear that my original numbers are closer to correct.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by Macarthur
Here's some balance on this issue:

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/mg18524861.400

http://www6.miami.edu/UMH/CDA/UMH_Main/1,1770,2593-1;41812-3,00.html

http://www.greenfacts.org/studies/climate_change/l_3/climate_change_8.htm#3

I know many on here like to point to the fact that the warming can be attributed to water vapor and we have no control/effect.

Actually, if you read some of these things, they speak of feedback and an amplification of water vapor due to the increase of greenhouse gases. So your stace that it's all about the water vapor is really only a half-truth. The increase of greenhouse gases has a multiplier effect on the water vapor.

What I have pointed out is that we cannot effect the CO2 in the atmosphere to any significant degree. Some have used numbers and blamed it all on man. But a brilliant Russian physicist and mathmetician says that we have it all backwards and that CO2 going up is an effect of warmer weather and not proximate cause.
And he further points out that warm air rises, releases heat then falls. Hence no real heat sink phenomenon just normal cycles based on cosmology and solar activity.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by Hupernikomen
And you will notice that I said that caused the green house effenct not of gases in the atomsphere. Having taught AP Chemistry I am quiet aware of the composition of the atomsphere.

According to wikipedia:

Water vapor is a naturally occurring greenhouse gas and accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 90%

(that is a wide range--looks debateable to me.)

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect --another online source

From Encarta: Water vapor is the most common greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, accounting for about 60 to 70 percent of the natural greenhouse effect

From PBS: On a clear day, water vapor can comprise 60 to 70 percent of the greenhouse effect. Next in line, carbon dioxide contributes an additional 25 percent.

~~~

After reading several "sources" it seems the "experts" are saying that on a cloudless day that water vapor contributes to 60 to 70 percent of the green house effect with Carbon Dioxide contributing the majority of the rest of the effect. On a cloudy day Water vapor appears to be in the 90 percentile of the effect. Evidence seems to supports that Carbon dioxide levels have increased since the industrial revolution. Proving what effect that has had on the earth's climate is a different debate. (Or at least it use to be before major media accepted it as gospel)

bUT THE still unanswered question is who caused the CO2 to go up to the levels of preindustrialization and who are the guys that have been driving the SUV's for the last 10000 years which we know is when it really started warming up. And that is the proof in and of itself that man has little effect on the change in climate because it has been changing all by itself for the last 18000 years.
Unless some wacko out there wants to postulate some little green man driving his starship in the atmosphere is what started the whole thing.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Pudlugger
Push to add $30 climate fee to domestic flights You knew it was going to cost us more money sooner or later.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[shankbear]

The Geico cavemen were burning up the primordial forests and causing the CO2 to rise, killing off eveything. The flying monkeys were all that were left. The monkeys were placed in Algores basement with old IBM PCs and they typed his little movie script. Michael Moore and Leo DiCaprio loved the monkeys and the script soo much that they copied it themselves. Then they said that Halliburton and Dick Cheney caused global warming and blew up the New Orleans levees and made Katrina.

This version makes about as much sense as the zillion diverse theories that are floating around. This earth has gone through much more traumatic climactic upheavals than humans dumping CO2. It is cyclical. It is natural. We don't start it of stop it.

[Reds fan]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
You knew it was going to cost us more money sooner or later.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

When has the answer not been, "let's just throw more money at it and it will go away"? Again it is the feel good answer to all our "problems" and the only answer the left can really come up with.
:mad: :mad: :mad:

[Macarthur]

Originally posted by shankbear
The Geico cavemen were burning up the primordial forests and causing the CO2 to rise, killing off eveything. The flying monkeys were all that were left. The monkeys were placed in Algores basement with old IBM PCs and they typed his little movie script. Michael Moore and Leo DiCaprio loved the monkeys and the script soo much that they copied it themselves. Then they said that Halliburton and Dick Cheney caused global warming and blew up the New Orleans levees and made Katrina.

This version makes about as much sense as the zillion diverse theories that are floating around. This earth has gone through much more traumatic climactic upheavals than humans dumping CO2. It is cyclical. It is natural. We don't start it of stop it.

So screw the earth!

We'll be taken up in the rapture anyway, who cares if we make the earth unliveable.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by Macarthur
So screw the earth!

We'll be taken up in the rapture anyway, who cares if we make the earth unliveable.

I am more of the ":who the hell does mankind think he is anyway?
God created this and there is no way in hell man could destroy it?
Bunch of arrogant self centered idiots that what we are.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by Hupernikomen
And you will notice that I said that caused the green house effenct not of gases in the atomsphere. Having taught AP Chemistry I am quiet aware of the composition of the atomsphere.

According to wikipedia:

Water vapor is a naturally occurring greenhouse gas and accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 90%

(that is a wide range--looks debateable to me.)

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect --another online source

From Encarta: Water vapor is the most common greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, accounting for about 60 to 70 percent of the natural greenhouse effect

From PBS: On a clear day, water vapor can comprise 60 to 70 percent of the greenhouse effect. Next in line, carbon dioxide contributes an additional 25 percent.

~~~

After reading several "sources" it seems the "experts" are saying that on a cloudless day that water vapor contributes to 60 to 70 percent of the green house effect with Carbon Dioxide contributing the majority of the rest of the effect. On a cloudy day Water vapor appears to be in the 90 percentile of the effect. Evidence seems to supports that Carbon dioxide levels have increased since the industrial revolution. Proving what effect that has had on the earth's climate is a different debate. (Or at least it use to be before major media accepted it as gospel)

I do think you should qualify your "expert sources". Wikipedia is not one for example....
My expert du jour is Richard Lindzen Professor of Meteorlogy MIT.
My resource document on Hydrology is real science and not watered down mumbo jumbo and hence too long to post.

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/mockler.html

[Macarthur]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
I am more of the ":who the hell does mankind think he is anyway?
God created this and there is no way in hell man could destroy it?
Bunch of arrogant self centered idiots that what we are.

Well, we may not be able to "destroy" it, but we can darn sure make it unlivable, and at that point, what's the difference.

I actually find your line of thinking the ultimate in arrogance.

What about those of us that either don't believe in God or believe that God gave us the free will to make our own determination on how this thing ends? So the consequences that accompany your irresponsible behavior are saddled by everyone, not just you.